Since I last wrote about the 21st-century skills movement it has become a juggernaut.

At the forefront is the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (hereafter, P21), a group that seeks to serve as a catalyst for educators, business leaders, and government seeking to change the curricula, teaching methods, and assessments used in K-12 schools. Ten states have joined the effort, agreeing to design new standards, assessments, and professional development programs in line with the P21 goals.

On February 24 I participated in a forum at Common Core (transcript here) examining the P21 effort. The discussion included the President of P21, Ken Kay. In response to an audience member’s question, Kay made a startling, but I think quite accurate statement: I’m paraphrasing, but he said something close to, “Our real expertise is in the setting of goals. Other people have the expertise in how to make it happen.”

It’s quite true that P21 has the expertise to set goals for schooling–at least, the goals that business interests would see as desirable. Business interests are well represented on their board, including people from Intel, Ford, Dell, and other prominent companies. The goals are not startling, and are ones that most observers would support: an emphasis on information acquisition, communication, problem solving, interpersonal interaction, self-direction, global awareness, economic and business literacy, and civic literacy. (Many of them skills that were pretty important in the 20th century and even in Plato’s time, as Andy Rotherham dryly noted.)

Sadly, P21 is not satisfied merely to set goals. A glance at the P21 website shows recommendations for policy, assessment, pedagogy (including links to lesson plans), standards, and professional development. When P21 says that they work with states, it certainly appears that this help involves much more than the setting of goals.

So what exactly are states getting when they participate?

Here’s what they are not getting: methods, assessments, and professional development that have been assessed and shown to be effective.

P21 doesn’t have a proven set of methods and materials. Rather, P21 has a vision of how the mind works, and how educational systems (classrooms, schools, districts, etc.) work. They believe that the methods they recommend are consistent with the workings of the mind and are compatible with the educational system.

P21′s vision for changes in education is based on several flawed assumptions about human cognition.

Assumption 1: Knowledge and Skills are separate.

In a prior post, I warned that the 21st-century skills movement in general is too focused on skills (analysis, synthesis, critical thinking) and ignores the fact that knowledge is critical to thought.

The P21 group claims to believe that knowledge is crucial, but there is a disquieting lack of attention paid to knowledge in the materials on their website. Diane Ravitch observed that she would be more convinced that they understand the imporant role of knowledge if the group were called “the Partnership for 21st Century Skills and Knowledge.”

But even if one takes their claim as sincere, P21 makes clear that they don’t understand how knowledge and skill work together. The P21 documents describe them as though they are separate, as though it’s possible to train skills on their own and so train students to be “good critical thinkers.”

As E. D. Hirsch emphasized in his talk at the forum, and as I’ve described elsewhere, thinking skills are intertwined with domain knowledge. Hirsch noted that Steven Spielberg is a brilliant thinker when it comes to cinema, but that doesn’t mean that he could manage the New York Yankees. Critical thinking in one domain does not apply to another. This is true because (1) knowledge is sometimes required to identify the root nature of the problem you’re dealing with and (2) you might understand the problem and know what you’re supposed to do, but still need background knowledge to use the critical thinking skill you want to apply. The danger in describing knowledge and skills as separate is that it is a short step from that belief to putting knowledge on the back burner. That fear seems justified by statements like this one from the P21 Intellectual and Policy Foundations document (p. 6): “With instant access to facts, for instance, schools are able to reconceive the role of memorization, and focus more on higher order skills such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.”

In other words, students can always Google the facts, so teachers can focus on skills.

Assumption 2: Teachers don’t have cognitive limits.

Everyone’s cognitive system has limits. We can’t remember everything that happens to us. We can’t pay attention to five things at the same time. This is important in the classroom because the methods that P21 encourages teachers to use (as the ones most likely to develop 21st-century skills) are incredibly demanding—so demanding that almost no one can use them effectively without a great deal of preparation and training. The demanding methods include project-based learning, small-group learning, and others in which students have some voice in the direction of the lesson plan. These methods are difficult because it’s so hard to plan for them; you can’t know what’s going to happen in the classroom until you get there.

Then, too, the knowledge that the teacher might need is broader—students have a say in what they will study, so the range of topics that the teacher must know is concomitantly broader. The greater cognitive demand of these lessons has been acknowledged by prominent proponents of them, including John Dewey and Michael Pressley. These types of lessons are also tougher from a classroom management perspective—a certain amount of hubbub is expected, and teachers might wonder whether hubbub will devolve into chaos, a point made by John Goodlad and by Mary Kennedy.

It’s important to note that teachers already believe the teaching methods promoted by P21 are the best ones.They are taught as much during their training. Yet classroom observation studies show that very few teachers use them, almost certainly because they are so difficult to use.

The P21 group shows no recognition of the enormity of this problem, nor of the likelihood that teachers will end up not using these methods or having difficulty managing them. You can’t just say “we’ve got great lesson plans.” The difficulty for teachers is inherent in the lesson plan. This doesn’t mean that students should never do projects—it means that we should be clear-eyed about the challenges that projects present, and have a plan to meet them, rather than to simply suggest that projects (and other methods) are a good idea.

Assumption 3: Experience is equivalent to practice.

Just because you do something doesn’t mean that you get better at it.

I have been driving for about 30 years, but I don’t think I’m a better driver than I was 29.5 years ago. I’ve gained experience, but I haven’t practiced. Practice entails trying to improve: noticing what you’re doing wrong, and trying different strategies to do better. It also entails meaningful feedback, usually from someone knowledgeable about the skill. This means that 21st-century skills like “working well in groups,” or “developing leadership,” will not be developed simply by putting people in groups or asking them to be leaders. Students must be taught to do these things. We simply don’t know how to teach leadership or collaboration the way that we know how to teach algebra or reading. As with Assumption 2, the conclusion is not that we shouldn’t try to teach these things to students, but rather that we should start with a realistic assessment of what we know about implementing methods to meet the stated goal.

What do these three faulty assumptions mean?

I believe they mean that states that adopt the recommendations of the P21 group will find they don’t work. Jay Mathews called 21st-century skills the latest doomed educational fad. Sadly, it will probably take a decade or so before that becomes evident.

I think it’s important that states try to meet the goals set by P21—indeed, they are goals that have been articulated for at least 100 years. As Diane Ravitch noted, the history of education is a seemingly endless parade of “new ideas” that are actually old ideas renamed. The hoariest chestnut of the bunch is that students need “real world problem-solving and critical thinking skills, which can be taught through projects, small-group learning” and so forth.

Ravitch thinks that the P21 movement is merely the latest entrant in this historical parade. I agree, and so does Gerald Bracey.

It’s not that the ideas are bad, but they clearly are not workable in the way that seems obvious: we want students to be able to do X in the world, so stick more X in the classroom. If it were that easy, it would have worked by now, because it has been tried many times before.That is the great danger of the P21 movement. To those unfamiliar with the history of education, the ideas sound compelling, and in fact, obvious. In the classroom, they are anything but.

I hope that state boards of education are thinking about how to inculcate 21st-century skills.

What changes should they contemplate?

The change that is least risky and simultaneously the most likely to pay dividends is to write state standards that call for significant content knowledge from students. These standards must do more than list facts: they must delineate conceptual knowledge and factual knowledge, and make clear how the two are related. (For more on this point, see this post.) Further, states can provide meaningful professional development and time for teachers to incorporate the standards into practice. The extent to which doing so will fulfill 21st-century goals may surprise policy makers.

If they want to try something else, they should begin by asking themselves why previous efforts in a similar spirit have not worked, and they should proceed cautiously. Recognize that you are moving forward on the basis of a theory, not on a proven method, and that students are thus guinea pigs in your experiment. So start small and see if it works—and note that “see if it works” means that you need to have a meaningful assessment plan in place before you start. Most of the current state assessments focus on content, and most do a mediocre job with that. Measuring 21st-century skills is much harder.

Without innovation, we cannot improve. Therefore, I do hope that some states will explore new venues of instruction and cutting-edge content.

I fervently hope that they will ignore the recommendations of P21 as they do so.